Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

If Saddam thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell of sanctions being removed while he was still in power, he was even more the deluded megalomaniac than he has been made out to be.posted by mr_roboto at 12:52 PM on October 6, 2004

Saddam should have spoken up. 17 UN resolutions...?posted by tomplus2 at 12:52 PM on October 6, 2004

Yeah, but did they search *all* the turkey farms?posted by filmgoerjuan at 1:17 PM on October 6, 2004

kirkaracha, why do you hate America so much?!posted by JollyWanker at 1:32 PM on October 6, 2004

heh: During his lengthy remarks on Iraq, Bush also avoided mention of a report presented Wednesday by the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, who concluded Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998. The finding contradicted prewar statements by Bush and top administration officials.

Bush also avoided references to the rising U.S. death toll in Iraq, which stood above 1,060 Wednesday.--CNNposted by amberglow at 2:00 PM on October 6, 2004

you're obviously forgetting Poland.posted by petebest at 2:00 PM on October 6, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - "Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders."

For several days now this link is being widely viewed on the net. WhoTF is CNSNews? Would think that if any of it was true, the information would be better distributed.posted by thomcatspike at 2:13 PM on October 6, 2004

It looks like CNSNews.com is a conservative-based thing. The founder and columnist, Brent Bozell is "President of the Media Research Center, Parents Television Council, and the Conservative Communications Center" as well as Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee, "an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years." He was National Finance Chairman for Buchanan's 1992 presidential bid.

Maybe Bush figured that people would just up and forget why we went to war and that Saddam was a bad, bad man?

In any case, this isn't really news, is it? I did see the Cheney campaign spokesperson last night try to say that Iraq had the facilities in place to make WMD's and Saddam was actively trying to restart them.

A stretch from even a credible source, bold faced lies from a Cheney spokesperson.posted by fenriq at 2:31 PM on October 6, 2004

It is "a conservative media watchdog group run by L. Brent Bozell. The Center has a $6 million annual budget and 60 staff members and is funded by larger right-wing foundations." [link]

It "Opposes any traces of liberalism on TV or in films. Chairman L. Brent Bozell III publishes the newsletter TV, ETC., with an advisory board that includes Elliot Abrams, Mona Charen, Pete DuPont, and Rush Limbaugh." [link]

"Bozell is also a member of the Council for National Policy, a secretive group described as a congregation of "the Right's Washington operatives and politicians, its financiers, and its hard-core religious arm." [link]

That would appear to be who CNSNews is.posted by Blue Stone at 2:33 PM on October 6, 2004

jmcnally & Blue Stone, thank you for the follow up.posted by thomcatspike at 2:38 PM on October 6, 2004

I don't know--I haven't reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors--inspection teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be glad to report.

Now that Charlie's back with the final report, I can't wait to hear Bush's final conclusion. Or maybe that whole WMD thing was really just a joke.

kirkaracha, why do you hate America so much?!
'Cause I hate our freedoms. Oh, and I'm an evildoer.posted by kirkaracha at 3:05 PM on October 6, 2004

Is anyone here still going to be voting for your "President" in November?

Jesud Christ, the US makes me sick to my stomach right now.posted by tomcosgrave at 5:08 PM on October 6, 2004

Suicide by cop. What a pity Saddam wouldn't cooperate FULLY and unreservedly with the UN inspectors, instead of leading them a merry chase for 12 YEARS. If he'd just cooperated back in '96, he could have had a nuke by now...

But he didn't. Too bad, so sad. Guess we need to give Iraq back to Saddam now... I wonder how long he would last if we gave him the keys to the country and put him out on the street?

Suicide by cop. What a pity Saddam wouldn't cooperate FULLY and unreservedly with the UN inspectors, instead of leading them a merry chase for 12 YEARS. If he'd just cooperated back in '96, he could have had a nuke by now...

Shorter JB: Bush is allowed to lie because Saddam did.posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:51 PM on October 6, 2004

Republicans are all practicing looking surprised in the mirror as we speak.

Save that look, you'll need it when more stories come about how the head neocons were told Iraq would be a quagmire.posted by skallas at 7:44 PM on October 6, 2004

Of course. Didn't you know that if other people lie, you're not lying, you're just sticking to your guns?posted by oaf at 7:45 PM on October 6, 2004

A reminder: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq, from June 03, including this gem: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address. posted by amberglow at 10:27 PM on October 6, 2004

mr_roboto, I'm sorry, but in 2001 lifting or weakening of sanctions was on the table. The "smart sanctions" plan put forth by the US and Britain was directly fashioned to keep some sort of sanctions regimen in place that was acceptable to Security Council members Russia and France, with China a swing vote. As I've said before, a cynical interpretation of the timeline would lead one to believe that the Bush administration expected sanctions relief at some point in the future; that is, that the Hussein regime's global political position was on the upswing. Hussein had been carefully building up Arab sympathies and was about to be rehabilitated within the Arab League. That is the major reason for moving the Iraq timetable up, not the newness of any evidence. 9/11 freed up the domestic political capital in a big way, and a surprising amount on the international side as well. Otherwise, the Bush administration would probably have waited for the inevitable provocation -- probably something in the Gulf, involving the Maritime Interception Force, or perhaps a plane incident in the no-fly zone.

True, as long as the US had a veto, they could use it to block the lifting of sanctions, but increasingly the embargo compliance review would have come up repeatedly.posted by dhartung at 11:00 PM on October 6, 2004

"Had the CIA's recent conclusion been reached two years ago, either within the administration or by Congress, the case for going to war would have been greatly weakened. In fact, as NBC News reported last March (and as almost nobody has picked up since), the Bush administration had several opportunities to bomb Zarqawi's camp well before the war. On at least two occasions the U.S. military drew up plans for an attack. But the White House rejected the proposals—mainly because shutting down Zarqawi's operation would have removed a key rationale for invading Iraq. This was a jaw-dropping bit of cynicism: Bush sold, and continues to sell, the war in Iraq as a major campaign in the global war on terrorism, yet he repeatedly passed up the chance to neutralize or kill one of the most dangerous terrorists (Zarqawi has spent much of his time lately chopping off the heads of foreign contractors) for fear of weakening the case for war."

I still don't understand why they never planted any wmd's in the chaos that is Iraq since the fall of the regime.
where's the LAPD where you need it?posted by matteo at 8:11 AM on October 7, 2004

In Feburary 2003, France, Germany, and Russia proposed more robust inspections (full text) that called for beefed-up inspection teams and increased aerial surveillance of Iraq.

Bush chose to reject this alternative, which was a violation of his obligation under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq to pursue a diplomatic and peaceful solution.posted by kirkaracha at 2:16 PM on October 7, 2004

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.